The persistence of vision is not dependent on the "fundamental biochemistry of the retina".
From the paper:"A critical point for the logic of this study is that flicker fusion frequencies are not limited by the retina, since retinal ganglion cells have extremely high temporal resolution. For example, in cat retinal ganglion cells, temporal resolution is ~95 Hz for X cells and ~120 Hz for Y cells under photopic illumination [14]. In primates, neurons in temporal cortex are able to temporally follow complex stimuli presented at 72 Hz [15]. Additionally, given the effect of many medications on the psychophysical flicker fusion frequency [16], it is clear that the limits of temporal resolution are central, not peripheral."
Every research article also carries its rationale for an experiment so you don't need to read the protocol to find that.
You suggested that the eye's "refresh rates" might be constrained differently than in the cortex and that was the "conclusion" I alluded to. I assumed you hadn't read the paper because that segment was clearly discussed in it. I therefore cut/pasted for you the portion in the paper on the temporal resolution at the level of the retina and how the stimulus presentation frequencies did not exceed this resolution.
Re:Invalidating this experiment...
on
Can Time Slow Down?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Please read the paper before jumping to conclusions:
"A critical point for the logic of this study is that flicker fusion frequencies are not limited by the retina, since retinal ganglion cells have extremely high temporal resolution. For example, in cat retinal ganglion cells, temporal resolution is ~95 Hz for X cells and ~120 Hz for Y cells under photopic illumination [14]. In primates, neurons in temporal cortex are able to temporally follow complex stimuli presented at 72 Hz [15]. Additionally, given the effect of many medications on the psychophysical flicker fusion frequency [16], it is clear that the limits of temporal resolution are central, not peripheral"
Slashdot Mirror
The persistence of vision is not dependent on the "fundamental biochemistry of the retina". From the paper:"A critical point for the logic of this study is that flicker fusion frequencies are not limited by the retina, since retinal ganglion cells have extremely high temporal resolution. For example, in cat retinal ganglion cells, temporal resolution is ~95 Hz for X cells and ~120 Hz for Y cells under photopic illumination [14]. In primates, neurons in temporal cortex are able to temporally follow complex stimuli presented at 72 Hz [15]. Additionally, given the effect of many medications on the psychophysical flicker fusion frequency [16], it is clear that the limits of temporal resolution are central, not peripheral."
Every research article also carries its rationale for an experiment so you don't need to read the protocol to find that. You suggested that the eye's "refresh rates" might be constrained differently than in the cortex and that was the "conclusion" I alluded to. I assumed you hadn't read the paper because that segment was clearly discussed in it. I therefore cut/pasted for you the portion in the paper on the temporal resolution at the level of the retina and how the stimulus presentation frequencies did not exceed this resolution.
Please read the paper before jumping to conclusions: "A critical point for the logic of this study is that flicker fusion frequencies are not limited by the retina, since retinal ganglion cells have extremely high temporal resolution. For example, in cat retinal ganglion cells, temporal resolution is ~95 Hz for X cells and ~120 Hz for Y cells under photopic illumination [14]. In primates, neurons in temporal cortex are able to temporally follow complex stimuli presented at 72 Hz [15]. Additionally, given the effect of many medications on the psychophysical flicker fusion frequency [16], it is clear that the limits of temporal resolution are central, not peripheral"